Jump to content

That 35mm f1.4 magic in other Fujinon lenses?


petergabriel

Recommended Posts

Hi Dani,

Have you posted somewhere portraits done with the 55-200?, I've been considering it for some time now since I want to avoid the 50-140 for its cost.

I usually use the 56 f/1.2 for 99% of my portraits... the 35 f/1.4 I don't use it that much, some times for full body and group shots. I'm thinking the 55-200 could complement my 56mm when I want more background separation and compression  :huh:

Cheers!

 

...The other one I really like is the XF55-200. I only got it recently, and am already considering doing most of my Portrait work with it... but when the light is right, the XF55-200 can really shine...

Edited by Biuti Chile
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've shot both, and have yet to see why so many think the 1.4 is magic... It's not that special in the classic 50 range... Perhaps it's the first lens or first prime people bought when they moved to fuji...

I have the 35 f2 and I find it renders better than the 1.4... And it retains better bokeh when stopping down, so you don't need to shoot everything wide open, which believe it or not, is an option :-)

I find my 35 f2 my only somewhat disappointing Fuji lens. It does focus faster than my 35 1.4, especially back on my X-T1, and is not really as unsharp as it seems on first glance. But there's something flatter about its rendering, something not as engaging. I'm back to using the 35 1.4 more on my X-T2. But I do use the 35 2 when focus speed or weather sealing are overriding considerations.

 

I'm also very partial to the 16 1.4 and the the 56 1.2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i love the 14mm and dont consider it as clinical in character as some   , its pin sharp but with a filmic render imho... the love fo the 35 mmm1.4 is well placed   its quite a special lens and i use it frequently 

 

i do love my 56mm 1.2 1nd also the kit zoom  18-55 2.8-4.... my favorite kit zoom anywhere ever ... unequaled by anyone 

a n y o n e

 

the 55 200 is kind of sweet too

Link to post
Share on other sites

but id like to add im a huge fan of adapted lenses ... i use the speedbooster with many nikkor lenses like the 35 70 2.8   the micro nikkor 105  2.8   50mm 1.4  and the exceptional 105mm 2.5     also with a hollow adapter sometimes for a little more reach

 

i also have a superb  minolta rokkor M mount 40mm f2  using a tiny adapter  and the lens is petite too

 

also a 45mm f2 contax g and 90 mm contax g 2.8 that render with exceptional filmic beauty color and contrast  and work great with the xe2 and xpro2... built like champagne color metal  tanks 

Edited by cosinaphile
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dani,

Have you posted somewhere portraits done with the 55-200?, I've been considering it for some time now since I want to avoid the 50-140 for its cost.

I usually use the 56 f/1.2 for 99% of my portraits... the 35 f/1.4 I don't use it that much, some times for full body and group shots. I'm thinking the 55-200 could complement my 56mm when I want more background separation and compression  :huh:

Cheers!

 

Hi, I haven't done too many portrait shoot with it yet, though an upcoming album will be almost entirely based on it...

In the meanwhile - you can look at this album:

https://www.facebook.com/dzisserman/media_set?set=a.10154058546103191.1073741929.769908190&type=3

 

The first 6 images of the girl with the light blue costume were shot with the 55-200. The other images in this album were shot with the 35/1.4

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a topic I'm pretty wrapped up in, as I prefer to only own lenses with some of those "special" qualities. Every system has different candidates, but I learned a long time ago that if you own the non-special lenses you either regret using them when something big happens, or you just leave them on the shelf and pack the others that you love a bit more. 

 

This is a huge part of what drew me to Fuji. 

 

Here's my read of the Fuji line, from that perspective and from my own pretty rigorous research. These are the lenses that I feel possess "special" qualities of one sort or another. 

 

1. The 35 1.4 is a superb lens. My big drawback with it was that the bokeh could take on a nervous quality in some occasions where high contrast light and high contrast backgrounds merged in the background. But the images from it can be amazing. But it had a pattern that I see in many Fuji lenses where they have good contrast, and defined boundaries between tones, and yet certain tones soften and create very smooth transitions. And yet, the edges stay distinct. Generally, it seems that skin tones (and similar values) are much smoother, whereas the darker tones have firmer boundaries. This makes soft light creamier. I love the effect, and it's similar to what drew me to Leica lenses back when I was learning and learned with a Leica film bag. Fuji and Leica handle these "creamy/contrasty" tradeoffs differently. They're not the same. But it's the same qualities beneath the surface between them, and I personally believe that Fuji shooters are getting some exceptionally brilliant lenses for their system. It's kind of a golden era, but as with most eras, people won't know it until it has passed and they miss what they had. 

 

Op4x8wo.jpg

 

I will say that a hidden value in that 35 1.4 is it's ability to shoot landscapes. I like taking moody black and white Landscapes (primarily centered in the American West). These aren't four exposure landscapes, digitally knitted together over 3 days of post processing. Amazing work that some do with those. But I'm more interested in the gritty, moody images like Robert Frank would have looked for. And that 35mm lens had a unique ability to have the sky and the highlights softly texured, but keep some firmer boundaries to the darker details (leaves, horizon outlines, and etc). 

 

 

 

2. That said, I find that the 35 f2 actually possesses it's own unique qualities--along the same lines as described above, but expressed in very different ways--and I like these qualities even better than I liked the 1.4. The bokeh on the f2 is smoother, and it's a good mix to go with the creamy skin tones and highlights. It's not that the f2 is "better" than the 1.4. It's just different, but different in some very interesting ways. There's just a dreamy kind of quality to them that I can't get, in the same way, from other lenses. 

 

sGYbfrE.jpg

 

Lif38bt.jpg

 

jcS2D6f.jpg

 

 

 

3. The other lens I've found that has this same dynamic--but again, expressed in different ways--is the xf56mm. This might be the greatest workhorse lens in the whole lineup. And in fact, I find it adds smoothness to a huge range of skin tones, from dark to pale. But where it also surprises is in how it can shoot moody landscapes in the same vein as the 50mm. How it chooses to separate smooth tones from darker edges is just... special. 

 

UZlukUD.jpg

 

NPZSuZA.jpg

 

lYrCHR3.jpg

 

pubY0IE.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

4. Another "special" lens is the 23 1.4. This lens has less of the creamy/contrasty qualities of the 35s and the 56, but it it does some other things better. The out of focus areas in the background are soft, the main subjects are pleasantly sharp even at wide apertures, and you can fit more context into the frame in a pleasant way. Something about how the lens allows light and sharpness to focus on the main subject, but then begins receding the background both in sharpness and in tone is pretty unique. I shoot most weddings with this lens on one body, and the 56 on the other.  When soft light floods a frame, with this lens, you can get some of those very soft tonal transitions as you see with the 35s. The difference is that it takes a LOT of light do get the effect with the 23, whereas teh 35s seem to do it in even low light. 

5kRj3NE.jpg

 

sPlRuXo.jpg

 

 

 

...cont'd

Edited by W Neder
Link to post
Share on other sites

cont'd....

 

 

5. The other two lenses that deserve mentioning in these categories are the 16mm 1.4 and the 90mm f2. They're along the same pattern to the above, so I won't post samples of them all. The 16mm handles light similarly to the 23 1.4, with the exception of bringing incredible sharpness across the frame and skin tones tend to be "highlighted" a bit more than other lenses.

 

One other remarkable thing about the 16mm is it's ability to do near-macro work. I'd never use it for proper macro work, professionally, but it can be great for more "moody" images (as it seems some Fuji lenses are superb at doing). The ability to have extremely sharp parts to the image, even wide open, with extremely creamy bokeh makes it a fun lens to play around with. 

 

quAhZj4.jpg

 

 

 

6. I've heard great things about the 14mm, but I had a copy with lower contrast and heavier distortion--uncommon reports on that lens, so likely an anomaly--so I should leave the samples to others. 

 

 

7. A last comment would be the lenses that don't possess these qualities, but I really wish they did. The Fuji 24-70 equivalent was one I was hoping would have this "fuji magic" to it, but I'm sad to say that it does not. Not even close. Contrary to the lenses above, the images from this zoom are generally flat, low contrast, and lifeless. I thought it might also be my copy, but as it turns out this is a bad pattern across the feedback on the lens. You can certainly fix the images and make them look good in post, but it's not as strongly present in the images directly from the camera/lens combination. 

 

I also had very high hopes for the 23 f2--following the great success of the 35 f2--but my testing didn't bare that out. The 23mm f2 is a perfectly capable little lens, but it has much less of that creamy tonal softness in the highlights and drags tones down into the blacks very quickly. It just didn't get the same magic as the others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5. The other two lenses that deserve mentioning in these categories are the 16mm 1.4 and the 90mm f2. They're along the same pattern to the above, so I won't post samples of them all. The 16mm handles light similarly to the 23 1.4, with the exception of bringing incredible sharpness across the frame and skin tones tend to be "highlighted" a bit more than other lenses.

 

One other remarkable thing about the 16mm is it's ability to do near-macro work. I'd never use it for proper macro work, professionally, but it can be great for more "moody" images (as it seems some Fuji lenses are superb at doing). The ability to have extremely sharp parts to the image, even wide open, with extremely creamy bokeh makes it a fun lens to play around with. 

 

quAhZj4.jpg

 

 

 

 

Is that with a 16mm? I've never seen anything like it! My first reaction was 60mm or the 90mm!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My 35 1.4 has zero to no distortion. The 2.0 on the other hand is horrid and its not very sharp wide open at its closest focusing distance. The 1.4 has none of those issues.

 

Distortion is a non-issue mostly nowadays with decent processing in camera and/or afterwards.

 

And as far as the sharpness of the f2 is concerned at close focus distance and wide open, I think it's just perfectly fine, even for pixel peepers.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Is that with a 16mm? I've never seen anything like it! My first reaction was 60mm or the 90mm!

 

Yep. Very close minimum focus distance, and tack sharp at areas of focus. Very unique properties. It's also an EXTREMELY sharp and contrasty lens when you're not at that close distance. Really a huge hidden gem of the lineup. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've seen magic with most of my fuji lenses...the 14...the 56...the 90...the 27!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dani,

Have you posted somewhere portraits done with the 55-200?, I've been considering it for some time now since I want to avoid the 50-140 for its cost.

I usually use the 56 f/1.2 for 99% of my portraits... the 35 f/1.4 I don't use it that much, some times for full body and group shots. I'm thinking the 55-200 could complement my 56mm when I want more background separation and compression  :huh:

Cheers!

 

Hi,

Just in case you want another example - I've just finished an album where the 50-200 was used almost exclusively (except for the last 2 photos which are 35/1.4)

 

https://www.facebook.com/dzisserman/media_set?set=a.10154245690033191.1073741933.769908190&type=3

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Yep. Very close minimum focus distance, and tack sharp at areas of focus. Very unique properties. It's also an EXTREMELY sharp and contrasty lens when you're not at that close distance. Really a huge hidden gem of the lineup. 

 16mm is my favorite XF lens for the reasons you cite. I too would characterize it as unique, but only in very good ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I now own the 14, 23 f1.4, 27, 35 f1.4, 50 and 18-55 kit lens.

 

As for magic the 35 f1.4 is a clear winner, and although the 14 and 23 f1.4 are more clinical, I find their rendering just beautiful. The 27 is sharp and very saturated which goes for the 50 f2 as well, and at first I was impressed, but the more I use them the more I find them looking over processed and digital. You know, where the contrast gets just that tad bit to black. I am seriously considering the 90mm, especially after so many of you state it has that magic rendering as well. Any samples, preferably sooc, with magic in them will be greatly appreciated :-)

Edited by petergabriel
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I guess 'magic' is a very personal taste. I find the 90mm to be quite magical.

 

I had the 35f1.4 but I couldn't get used to it's grinding noise and relatively slow focus. I traded it in for the f2 version so I guess I've mostly missed out on the magical qualities of the 35f1.4. Later I ditched the 35mm focal length completely; For a walk around lens I prefer something a bit wider, like 23. And for portraiture I prefer 56 (or more).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What I especially like about my 35/1.4 is how it handles flare. The 56/1.2 is magical in its own way, but this it can't do. I can only reproduce it with some vintage lenses.

Also the gentle sharpness roll-off is what makes this lens cinematic. The 35/2 (which I do not own) may have smoother and more pleasant bokeh, but it is a different beast again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I started with the 35 f2 then sold it in favor of purchasing the 1.4 initially.

The rendering of the 1.4 is indeed lovely but i did at times, initially miss the speed and sharpness of the f2.

After spending time with the 1.4, I then went out and purchased the Mitakon 35mm f0.095 mkII and it is by far my favorite out of the 3 lenses

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I can add to my first list of 'magical" Fuji lenses also 90/2 that I shot lately. Wonderful rendering with same touch and 'soul' as 35/1.4, 18/2 and 60/2.4. I have used also 23/2, 35/2 and 50/2 and their rendering is just ordinary, most unimpressed rendering I have seen in Fujis land. 16/1.4 and 23/1.4 give clinical look but they are not that boring as this f/2 trio. Best Fuji zoom is still for me 55-200mm, it has the most organic rendering in all Fujis. 56/1.2 is ok but it goes on colder and sterile side with some pastel colour, 60/2.4 is still a winner for me.

Fuji should make mk2 versions of 35/1.4, 18/2, 60/2.4 and 55-200mm with exactly same lens formula but WR and newest AF motors. These are the only lenses - including 90/2 - that make I still stay with Fuji. Otherwise I would switch for sure.   

Edited by renes
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...